Now I appreciate I am a social media whore and have posted all sorts of rubbish in the past, but even I would never do something like this …

I honestly don’t know who is the bigger idiot …

Nescafe for thinking this is a good idea.

The agency for coming up with this idea.

The couple – who occupy that unique space of un-influential, influencers – who decided to commemorate their engagement by selling their souls for a few quid and appearing in a social media post for an international coffee brand while pretending [1] it’s totally natural to commemorate your engagement by appearing in a social media post for an international coffee brand and [2] it’s totally believable to have a staged photo of you in bed, despite the fact there was a photographer in the room with you..

Some other questions are:

+ Why are they not looking at each other?

+ Why is he so, so, so brown?

+ Judging by how tensed up his arms are, just how heavy is that cup of coffee?

+ Why is he cradling his cock?

Seriously, this might be the most z-grade version of Hello magazine that ever lived.

Everyone involved in this – and I mean everyone – needs a bloody big smack in the head.

I’m almost certain I’ve been asked so people can learn what not to do, but despite that, I asked an old client for a quote about what it was like working with me so I could include it in the presentation.

The picture at the top of this post is what he sent me.

I know it could be read as an insult, but either way, it makes me insanely happy … which may say more about me than it does about the quality of our old working relationship.

To get to the top while remaining authentic to who you are is something truly special.

To do all that and be a person of colour … well, that’s the highest accolade of all.

Of course I hope for a time where this isn’t news – it is just normal – and while neither of them should have to have the additional burden of being a role model, they are and, if I’m being honest, they should be because if you want to model yourself on anyone – regardless of your heritage or background – it’s them.

Smart as shit.

Charismatic as Clooney.

Total natural born leaders.

Tireless in their passion.

Focused on making the best work of everyone’s lives.

A real and proven desire to help young talent come through.

[In both cases, they have personally helped me help people I thought were bursting with talent but were not getting the breaks I felt they had earned, let alone deserved]

In fact, if it wasn’t for the fact I can consistently beat them at table tennis, they’d be perfect.

But the fact is, Karrelle and Jason are still anomalies in this business – and while that should not underestimate the impact they will have on people of colour who previously had little or no role models for believing they could get to the top – it’s also why I’m a bit conflicted with Adcolor’s Future program.

Let me be clear, this is not about Adcolor specifically.

They are an amazing organisation who have done more to promote diversity in the industry than anyone else, not to mention for longer than everyone else.

Their mission has always been to create a community of diverse professionals who support and celebrate eachhother and they have an incredible track record of doing just that … giving people of colour a real chance in an industry loaded with hurdles.

For hurdles, read ‘senior white men’.

And this is why I’m conflicted.

You see recently a couple of my colleagues applied to get in their Future’s program. They are talented, smart, passionate colleagues… who happen to be people of color, but sadly they didn’t get in.

Let me be clear they were OK with the decision.

Disappointed, but OK.

And I can say the same too.

Despite their talent, maybe they didn’t show how good they are in the way they needed to.

But here’s the bit that bothers me.

You see instead of being told what/where they went wrong … how they could improve … they were just told ‘no’.

Now I’m sure there’s a bunch of reasons for the limited response – for example. maybe they’re inundated with requests – but for an organization committed to helping people of colour move forward, a simple ‘yes or no’ seems counter to that commitment.

It feels like they are judges instead of coaches.

Deciding someone’s fate instead of helping it rise.

Now I fully appreciate I am not aware of all the facts.

I also appreciate that Adcolor as an organization is very open and transparent.

But I would have loved it if the people behind their Future’s program had given my colleagues some advice about what they could have done better with their submission, because the fact they wanted to belong to a group who wants to improve the industry means they’re already showing traits adland badly needs to embrace.

But lets be honest, success for people of colour should not just be down to Adcolor.

Nor the inspirational achievements of Karrelle and Jason.

We all have a role to play.

And that goes beyond just talking about it, but doing things about it.

One of the things America has taught me is that if you don’t act, you’re complicit in keeping things the same.

I’d love to think I have always acted on this issue – not just because I’ve spent so much of my career living in nations where I was a member of the [privileged] minority – but that’s how I was brought up.

And while the only way we’ll find out if I’m full of shit is if we ask the people of colour I’ve worked with – both in America and around the World – if I’ve fought for them and shown my belief and faith in them, there’s one thing that is absolutely not open to interpretation …

Diversity makes everything better.

It allows different experiences, understanding and cultural references to open up possibilities and opportunities for everyone and everything. From creativity to culture. Commerce to the potential of creating real change.

But it does even more than that.

It can take our industry to places we might never see or experience without it.

Let’s be honest, our industry has been predominantly shaped by white males.

Hey, some of them have done a brilliant job. I’m not knocking them – or anyone who is white or male – I also happen to be one.

But imagine the possibilities if we let people who had different backgrounds, different experiences, different frames-of-reference to have a go.

Finally we might get to some genuine new thinking in the industry as opposed to the usual old ideas with a different name.

And unlike many of us white guys, people of colour [not to mention members of the LGBT communities] have always been generous with their brilliance, talent and kindness, which given all the shit they have had to – and continue to have to – deal with, that makes them the sort of leader we’d all benefit from working with and for.

Put simply, every single person in adland should be pushing, embracing, celebrating and making room for diversity.

Not because it is ‘the right thing to do’ – even though it is – but it might be the only thing that can save adland and make it truly matter again.

If anything will help you be excited about the oncoming weekend, it will be that.

So the picture above is from a presentation I give to planners.

The reason for it is because I find it fascinating when ad folk try to be like their client.

Exactly like their client.

The way they speak. The way they dress. The way they think.

Of course, I understand the importance of knowing your client, their business and their challenges, but the problem with mirroring your client is that you end up looking at the World in the same way as them … and as much as some people may think that’s a good thing, it’s not.

You see when you focus on being like an insider, you ignore the benefits of thinking like an [informed] outsider. You know, the perspective the client actually hired you for in the first place.

As one of my old senior Nike clients once said to me …

“Senior management need and want to be challenged because that’s how we keep things moving forward. If you’re not doing that, then you’re not doing anything for us”.

Now I appreciate not every client thinks this way, but this shift to client mirroring is – in my opinion – another thing that has undermined our industry.

I swear the reason for it is an attempt to be taken seriously as a client partner when the easiest way to achieve that is to do work that shows we are a serious client partner.

Do the people who say, “we’ve lost our seat at the boardroom table” seriously think this approach will change that?

Maybe … but then they will be wrong because there’s only 3 things that will do that.

1. Talk about the things that are important to the client rather than important to us.

2. Know their audience/culture better than they know their audience/culture.

Not just in the short-term, but in the long … where client can see the economic value of investing in their brand voice. Not just through ‘brand campaigns’, but in how they approach everything they do.

Now I know some of you may think this whole post is my attempt to justify wearing shit t-shirts and birkenstocks to client meetings for the last 25+ years – and maybe it is – but if we are to get back to where we belong, I passionately believe it’s not going to happen by behaving more like clients, but by getting back to the things they need and no one else can do.

So a while back, someone asked me what I thought made a ‘good planner’.

To be honest, all I really remember is that they caught me on a bad day and so I kind of went on an all-out rant.

By pure chance I recently came across my reply and while I definitely sound a bit of a mentalist – not to mention I miss out talking about a whole bunch of stuff I believe is super-important, like empathy – there was a lot in there that I felt had some value, if only to open a debate about what our discipline is supposed to do and what it can be.

Planning is one of the most overused terms in the industry these days.

Everyone is now a planner … except in truth, many are either ‘packagers’ – taking the clients info and packing it into easily digestible chunks – or media people who tell you where to put your work based entirely on numbers rather than any true audience understanding.

Now I am not saying those folks aren’t important, of course they are, but for me planning is about ignition to bigger opportunities and possibilities.

For me, a planner understands 3 fundamental things:

+ What the real business problem is.
+ Who the core audience is.
+ What the creative opportunity is.

Those 3 things form the foundation of making things … things that don’t just solve the problem, but help the client have a sustainable position in culture that ultimately makes their marketing work harder for them.

Great planners care about creativity rather than advertising.

Care more about authenticity of a brand rather than marketing of a brand.

Want to uncover why people do stuff rather than just what they do.

It’s not about convenient answers, but ones that really understand the madness of how we all think and do and what we value and believe.

Of course when you’re spending billions of someone else’s money, the temptation to choose convenient, mass-acceptance answers is high and while that can get you results, breakthrough only comes when you resonate with culture rather than just try to be relevant to it.

The un-said.
The hard to explain.
The not easy to hear but it’s true.

It’s for this reason I always tell clients they shouldn’t focus purely on the methodology being used to uncover this stuff … but the person leading it, the people they’re talking to and the questions they are asking.

There’s a reason why a brand like NIKE is still at the top of its game after so long.

Sure, they have ups and downs along the way, but to still have that energy and pull 54 years after they were founded is remarkable.

Of course the biggest part of this is they make great products, have a focus on innovation, have incredible distribution and enjoy the benefits of their market power. But arguably, other companies can lay claim to doing this which is why I believe their ‘secret sauce’ is their commitment to the culture they believe in and are a part of. The culture of the athlete.

Everything they do goes through this lens.

Everything.

And that’s why their marketing doesn’t follow the usual strategic approaches of looking for ‘white space’ or ‘getting to as broad an audience as possible’, but to have a deep connection to the lives and minds of the athlete so they can bring the lessons to life in the most inspirational, yet deeply authentic way possible.

This approach dictates everything, including how they choose and use their agency partners.

From a planning perspective, I know I placed far more value on someone who has a deep love of sport and creativity than anyone who could talk process or methodologies because for me – and NIKE and Wieden and every other agency on their roster – their job was to inspire great creatives to do something audacious for a client who fundamentally believes in the power of their brand voice and sport.

All this highlights 3 things.

1. Great planning comes from truly understanding the core audience.

2. Great work comes from knowing how to be useful to the creative team.

3. Great brands differentiate themselves by their authenticity and distinctiveness.

I’ve written a lot about differentiation.

While the goal should always be to ensure your clients stands out from their competitors, if the approach is to ‘own’ a position that hasn’t been taken, then ultimately you’re letting your competitors dictate your future rather than deciding it for yourself.

For me, great brands embrace their truth in fresh and exciting ways.

They attract culture rather than chase it because they are the culture, not observers of it.

It means they are always moving forward rather than remaining stagnant.

So I know that the first reaction most people will have reading the title of this post is, “Pot. Kettle. Black.”

And I get it, I can talk. A lot.

But the thing is, in actual client meetings, I’m much more surgical.

There’s a couple of reasons for this.

The first is I am genuinely interested to hear what others in the room think.

The second is it allows me the time to truly consider my point of view in consideration of all we’ve heard.

And thirdly, I can ensure my POV has the opportunity to be shaped by others perspectives that I may not have considered.

However there are 2 occasions where I don’t follow these rules.

The first is when the room requires some sort of ignition to commence debate.

I know we live in times where everyone seems to have a point of view on everything, but there are occasions when silence happens and when it does, my role is to kick things off so a topic finds its natural rhythm and momentum with the rest of the attendees.

The other time I enter the fray earlier is when we have the self-appointed expert.

Now as I’ve said many times, I’m a huge fan of ‘intelligent naivety’ … people who experience/situation affords them a unique perspective on a subject matter, despite not being employed or trained in it.

For example, years ago when I was working with Dreamworks to define what ‘entertainment’ was, one of the people we invited who had a fascinating perspective, was a mother of 8 kids who regarded anything that kept her kids quiet and still for 15 minutes was the pinnacle of entertainment.

But I’m not talking about these folk.

The beauty of them is they tend to speak very much from their personal perspective, situation and experience and never try to claim their opinion is valid for a different set of circumstances.

I’m talking about the people who don’t understand that their perspective is simply their perspective rather than something that is universal and can be transported to others.

The millionaires who talk about what it’s like to be a kid in a low income home, based on what their kid likes.

The ad folk who talk about what life is like in the suburbs because they read an article about it in The Guardian.

The white guys who talk about understanding what it’s like to be an African American because they aren’t racists.

The men who tell women what they want because “my Mum was one”.

The businessmen who talk about what an ad should look like because they know business.

And while those people absolutely have a right to an opinion, they need to be reminded it’s just that – an opinion, not a fact – because if you let them talk incessantly, they don’t just have the ability to derail a meeting, they have the ability to get otherwise sane people to agree to decisions that are utterly car-crash. Remember Pepsi?

Anyone who has ever read this blog would know the last thing I’m about is thought leadership.

Maybe thought rambling, but not thought leadership.

However a company recently reached out to me about that very subject.

Not to hear my perspective on a particular subject, but to offer to tell me my perspective on a particular subject.

Is this AI on a whole new level?

No, it’s a company who apparently doesn’t like small talk and wants to get straight-to-the-point about offering me the chance to have them write an opinion piece for me and then get it published.

Not my actual opinion, I should add … but one they know they can shove in any random magazine because they’re desperate for content and get me to pay them for the privilege.

Oh, they drop some great magazine names.

Fast Company. Forbes. Tech Crunch.

But we all know the reality is 99% of the articles will be in stuff like the West Bridgford Gazette and the Illawarra Mercury.

I would love to know how many of these things they do?

How many ‘thought leaders’ are actually thought outsourcers?

And I guess I will because I’ve written to them to say ‘this looks amazing, please can you give me more information’, even though the reality is I already feel enough of an imposter without paying these bastards to rub it in.